[01:19] <Madpilot> floodbot got there first
[01:22] <Seeker`> Chaos is known
[01:26] <Seeker`> -01:06:25- :Chaos2358 : ccan someone help me? im stumped. I download the teamviewer 5 software through the teamviewer website and it uses ubuntu software center to install. it works perfectlly fine except that it removes it self from my computer everytime i reboot. it not only removes itself from the computer but when i search in ubuntu software center for it it isnt there either
[01:26] <Seeker`> -01:11:09- :Chaos2358 : ccan someone help me? im stumped. I download the teamviewer 5 software through the teamviewer website and it uses ubuntu software center to install. it works perfectlly fine except that it removes it self from my computer everytime i reboot. it not only removes itself from the computer but when i search in ubuntu software center for it it isnt there either
[01:26] <Seeker`> -01:17:34- :Chaos2358 : ccan someone help me? im stumped. I download the teamviewer 5 software through the teamviewer website and it uses ubuntu software center to install. it works perfectlly fine except that it removes it self from my computer everytime i reboot. it not only removes itself from the computer but when i search in ubuntu software center for it it isnt there either
[01:27] <Seeker`> -01:18:18- :Chaos2358 : ccan someone help me? im stumped. I download the teamviewer 5 software through the teamviewer website and it uses ubuntu software center to install. it works perfectlly fine except that it removes it self from my
[01:27] <Seeker`>                         computer everytime i reboot. it not only removes itself from the computer but when i search in ubuntu software center for it it isnt there either
[01:27] <Seeker`> -01:18:18- :Chaos2358 : ccan someone help me? im stumped. I download the teamviewer 5 software through the teamviewer website and it uses ubuntu software center to install. it works perfectlly fine except that it removes it self from my
[01:27] <Seeker`>                         computer everytime i reboot. it not only removes itself from the computer but when i search in ubuntu software center for it it isnt there either
[01:27] <Seeker`> once?
[01:27] <Chaos2358> ok i dont know how the heck it posted three times i meant to post once and didnt mean to leave
 wow no one in here? really? great thanks alot guys
[01:27] <bazhang> yikes
[01:27] <Madpilot> looks like a flounce to me
[01:28] <Seeker`> I would suggest that you don't try to chat on irc if you can't control your computer.
[01:28] <Chaos2358> what ever
[01:28] <Chaos2358> good bye gentlemen
[01:28] <Seeker`> or you'll end up getting yourself banned agin.
[01:28] <bazhang> agin!
[01:28] <Madpilot> flouncing all the way
[01:28] <Madpilot> charming
[01:29] <Seeker`> bazhang: ssh ,its 0130, I'm allowed a typo :P
[01:29] <bazhang> Seeker`, no wai!
[01:29] <bazhang> whoopsie
[01:29] <Madpilot> snerk
[01:29] <bazhang> I prefer agin
[02:27] <IdleOne> ugh to people running as root and asking why apt-get install dist-upgrade doesn't work
[02:28] <IdleOne> considering that command will give you an error about dist-upgrade not being a package and the user not understanding it makes running as root even worse
[03:25] <maco> ohmy
[03:26] <IdleOne> what?
[03:31] <Madpilot> ?
[03:45] <maco> @ what IdleOne said
[03:47] <Madpilot> the running-as-root-while-not-having-clue?
[03:47] <maco> yes
 aw I miss fisting?  <--- uhhhhhh that means what i think it means, right?
[03:49] <maco> IdleOne: ?
[03:50] <Madpilot> both prong and replicasex are on the "enough rope" stage, I think...
[03:52] <IdleOne> maco: yeah, you didn't misread
[03:54] <IdleOne> chien was speaking french the second time he asked. he has been banned before for the same reason
[03:54] <IdleOne> continually asking the same question in different languages
[05:48] <MTecknology> Where was the channel that lists unanswered questions? I thought it was #ubuntu-questions but that channel doesn't seem to be open. The one I remember was open to anyone.
[06:04] <IdleOne> MTecknology: #ubuntu-meta
[06:09] <MTecknology> thanks
[09:25] <aborticide> hi there
[09:25] <aborticide> i'd like to request a permanent ban from #ubuntu please
[09:26] <aborticide> please comply or i will force myself into doing it, for fun
[09:26] <aborticide> the forcing will be for fun, but the ban has a purpose
[09:52] <ikonia> isn't aborticide bacta (the IP country looks wrong)
[09:57] <topyli> i don't think it is
[10:06] <bazhang> nope not bacta
[10:17] <ikonia> that looked nothing like him, (especially the IP range) but I thought he'd used that nick
[10:18] <bazhang> ikonia, not him; though he does keep asking for a cloak in #freenode (regular issue in other channels)
[10:19] <ikonia> I've seen him be a problem
[10:30] <aborticide> please ban me from #ubuntu
[10:31] <aborticide> thanks
[10:52] <ikonia> he is banned
[10:53] <ikonia> don't know why he's asking again
[10:53] <bazhang> muted only I thought
[10:54] <ikonia> no, I banned him
[10:55] <bazhang> ah okay
[10:55] <ikonia> he's in freenode calling the #ubuntu ops stupid and asking to be banned
[10:55] <ikonia> beyond his nickname, I don't know what his problem/attitude is all about
[11:22] <Seveas> bazhang, prod
[11:22] <bazhang> Seveas, hi
[11:22] <Seveas> seen that link syria posted? Now visit the root of that url
[11:22] <bazhang> ok
[11:22] <Seveas> something to watch out for...
[11:23] <bazhang> holy cow
[11:23] <Seveas> yes...
[11:23] <bazhang> thanks for the heads up Seveas
[11:23] <Seveas> np
[11:40] <topyli> i have explained this in pm to plantsvsme
[15:21] <topyli> IdleOne: talking to mahen23 now in pm
[15:21] <IdleOne> topyli: thank you.
[15:21] <topyli> gah
[15:23] <IdleOne> also he was complaining about the archive for the operator email call wasn't working.
[15:23] <IdleOne> I wonder why he even cares
[15:25] <ikonia> link works fine for me
[15:25] <IdleOne> yeah, me too
[15:26] <topyli> he's explaining to him how this is his normal behavior and perfectly ok. i'm explaining that his normal behavior is not okay on our channels. let's see if we can manage to make the twain meet
[15:26] <ikonia> he's had that conversation a few times
[15:27] <topyli> hrm
[15:31] <ikonia> (that doesn't mean it's not worth having again)
[15:34] <topyli> well i made things clear for him i hope, and told him i won't do it again
[16:14] <IdleOne> Who is sjm?
[16:15] <ikonia> sjm: a user who made an factoid update request
[16:15] <ikonia> other than that he's not spoke
[16:16] <IdleOne> ahh ok.
[16:16] <IdleOne> well, should he still be here is the question
[16:16] <IdleOne> was about the fakeraid thing right
[16:17] <IdleOne> two days ago
[16:18] <ikonia> sjm: ping are you awake
[16:18] <ikonia> if he doesn't need anything, then no
[16:29] <ikonia> getting REALLY fedup with #kubuntu-offtopic doing support
[16:29] <ikonia> it's supposed to be a core channel and fall in line with the topics/guidelines
[16:29] <ikonia> mostly it's just eagles who brings it up, but he's not the only one
[17:25] <ikonia> !guidelines
[18:01] <Seeker`> For interested parties, discussion about core-ops should be taking place in #ubuntu-meeting now
[18:04] <IdleOne> nhandler topyli ping
[18:05] <topyli> ohh
[19:47] <Seeker`> I have just decativated my membership to #ubuntu-offtopic ops and #ubuntu ops. I don't know if anyone wishes to remove my access from the appropriate channels.
[19:49] <Seeker`> Please can someone let me know when it is done and I will part the channel.
[19:53] <IdleOne> Seeker`: in my opinion I believe you doing that is a mistake. You should take a couple days to think about this before making it final.
[19:53] <tonyyarusso> hmmm, what'd I miss?
[19:53] <IdleOne> tonyyarusso: #ubuntu-meeting
[19:54] <IdleOne> ahh sorry thought you were idle there
[19:54] <IdleOne> meeting is over already
[19:54] <tonyyarusso> nah, I used to, but my days of 40 channels are over in an attempt to maintain a shred of sanity :P
[19:54]  * tonyyarusso goes to read the logs then
[19:55] <IdleOne> has to do with core-ops/core-channel issue
[19:55] <tonyyarusso> I'm confused as to what exactly the "issue" is with that - maybe these meeting logs will enlighten me
[19:55] <IdleOne> in any case I don't think Seeker` should drop his access like this.
[19:56] <topyli> Seeker`: not me, i'm not doing it at least today
[19:57] <Seeker`> IdleOne: It isn't in my best interests to subject myself to the stress of watching a broken process be made worse by a council that can't operate efficiently and is capable of ignoring the opinions of the very people it represents. I'm fed up of getting the response that "we didn't have time" or being told to "add it to the next agenda". Nothing I say or do can help improve the situation without a signficant change in attitude which I don't see comi
[19:57] <topyli> later if you still think so
[19:57] <IdleOne> Seeker`: emotions are clearly running high. Please take some time to reconsider.
[20:00] <Seeker`> IdleOne: I was considering it before the meeting. 90 mins of indecisiveness, vague answers that kinda avoid the point of the question and no apparently desire to try and reducd the amount of complexity in the IRC governance didn't do anything t ochange my mind.
[20:01] <IdleOne> Nothing is perfect we know that but quitting and giving up is not going to help make it better.
[20:02] <IdleOne> Just need to step back for a day or two and not think about it. take a break if you want but don't quit, not yet.
[20:02] <knome> IdleOne, it might not seem the wisest thing to do, but if he wants to quit like this, please let him.
[20:02] <IdleOne> knome: why?
[20:03] <knome> IdleOne, because this is voluntary work and he's allowed to quit like that if he wants. begging him to stay makes it worse.
[20:04] <IdleOne> I am not begging. I am asking him to reconsider and take into account how it will affect the rest of the team. I believe his quitting the ops team would be a great loss to the team.
[20:05] <knome> but you really can't make him stay if he doesn't want to
[20:05] <IdleOne> that is not my goal
[20:05] <IdleOne> I am not trying to make him stay.
[20:05] <Seeker`> IdleOne: I'm not doing this out of emotion or trying to cause drama. Simply put, I don't want to be a witness to the train wreck that is currently going on, and stay on the team isn't worth the stress involved in trying to fix it.
[20:05] <IdleOne> I am asking him to think about it. we just left a meeting where emotions ran high and I don't believe he has had the time to think this threw
[20:06] <IdleOne> Seeker`: ok, if you are sure. I support your decision.
[20:06] <knome> tbh, i think he has been thinking about this more than needed. it's not like he got frustrated to this decision today
[20:06] <knome> s/decision/situation/
[20:06] <knome> anyway, i'll shut my mouth now.
[20:07] <tonyyarusso> So apparently #kubuntu* aren't core channels eh?  I thought we'd straightened that out, but apparently not.
[20:07] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: they are, but then they can implement their own rules
[20:08] <tonyyarusso> Seeker`: If the IRCC isn't responsible for them, then they're not a core channel.  Thinking anything would just be lying to ourselves.
[20:08] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: thats what I think too. The IRCC seems adament that they are core channels though.
[20:09] <tonyyarusso> Right, because Ubuntu people are obsessed with "zomg appease everyone kumbaya!", instead of having actual governance sometimes :P
[20:10] <Seeker`> something like that
[20:14] <tonyyarusso> Seeker`: for what it's worth, I don't think I agree with your counter-proposal, but I certainly agree that whatever the IRCC's proposal is has had woefully poor communication.
[20:14] <tonyyarusso> as in, I think I would agree with the IRCC, if I knew what I was agreeing with ;)
[20:15] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: all the IRCC's proposal is at present is that a core-op is an op in all core channels.
[20:15] <Seeker`> Thats all that has been agreed.
[20:15] <IdleOne> I think that is what the whole issue is, nobody seems quite clear on what is what
[20:15] <tonyyarusso> and that they would apply for that in a separate process, after already being approved as a channel-specific operator - that appears to have also been agreed on.
[20:15] <tonyyarusso> The ambiguity I see is in evaluation criteria.
[20:15] <tonyyarusso> IdleOne: yeah
[20:16] <tonyyarusso> Not sure why confusion would be a reason to quit though (@ Seeker` )
[20:16] <topyli> in a nuthsell, we came up with a team and even defined the criteria for members. somewhere along the way, we forgot why it was needed. now Seeker` figured out use for the team, but disagrees with the membership criteria :)
[20:16] <Seeker`> topyli: I didn't "figure out a use for it". I was explicitly told that getting more ops in here was dependant on it.
[20:16] <tonyyarusso> topyli: What membership criteria?  I see a process, but no meaningful criteria.
[20:17] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: Another way of wording my proposal would be that people shouldn't be made channel-specific ops unless they are also capable of being core-ops.
[20:17] <topyli> uh it's documented, i'm not doing the meeting again
[20:17] <tonyyarusso> Seeker`: btw, I don't think this is only about whether we *trust* operators.  It's also about what ops want.  If you have +o somewhere, people start expecting you to *use* it, and I don't *want* to be expected to respond to things all over the place :)
[20:18] <tonyyarusso> topyli: haven't finished the meeting log - maybe I'll find it yet
[20:19] <topyli> try the wiki. the link is very early in the log too
[20:19] <IdleOne> topyli: may I msg you if you got a minute or three?
[20:20] <tonyyarusso> I looked at the wiki.........
[20:20] <IdleOne> topyli: if you are busy, it's ok no rush
[20:20] <tonyyarusso> I see *1* criterion:  "To apply to become a Core Operator, you must first be an active operator in one, or more, of the core channels. "
[20:21] <tonyyarusso> That doesn't even say a time period you have to have been a channel operator for.
[20:21] <Seeker`> There isn't a description of any other critera the IRCC will assess.
[20:21] <Seeker`> At least, not publically visible.
[20:22] <topyli> IdleOne: sure. i'm not busy i'm just slow
[20:23] <topyli> tonyyarusso: you fill this critera and apply. that's the current idea
[20:23] <tonyyarusso> topyli: That seems.....silly to say the least.
[20:23] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: I am quitting because I am dissatisfied with the IRCC, the length of time it takes to do anything, how hard it is to get a straight answer, the contempt they seem to have for operators and the sheer level of inconsistency in answers depending on who you talk to and when. There aren't being any steps taken to help operators, just feet-dragging.
[20:24] <Seeker`> topyli: and then what? Put the names on the wall and let monkeys fling faeces at the names? Whichever get hit get to be a core-ops?
[20:24] <tonyyarusso> Seeker`: that seems more reasonable, if you're saying as an assessment of the last 6+ months rather than this week.
[20:24] <topyli> tonyyarusso: it's how ops are made
[20:26] <Seeker`> topyli: I think what tonyyarusso wants to know is the critera that are applied that differentiate between a core-channel op and a core-op
[20:26] <Seeker`> What extra questions are asked to work out whether they would be suitable.
[20:27] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: is that right?
[20:27] <tonyyarusso> topyli: There are half a dozen criteria for new ops, and an interview and discussion process based on observation of catalyst skills, etc.  There are things that can actually result in denial.  The process for core-ops as written guarantees that it's just a rubber-stamp for anyone who applies, unless the IRCC is planning to arbitrarily choose people it likes (which is what you will be accused of if you deny anyone without writing ...
[20:27] <tonyyarusso> ... out further criteria).
[20:27] <topyli> uh
[20:27] <tonyyarusso> Seeker`: basically
[20:28] <Seeker`> uh?
[20:28] <tonyyarusso> If you intend it to be an automatic upgrade after serving as a channel op for X time, then just call it a probationary period before becoming a full op, instead of pretending it's some other separate thing that has no separate rules.
[20:29] <Seeker`> topyli: this isn't meant to be a hard question.
[20:29] <tonyyarusso> Core problem, summarized:  I don't know if I'm agreeing with you or arguing with you, because I have utterly no idea what the IRCC is trying to say.
[20:29] <topyli> oh looks like i'm expected to pay attention and continue the meeting here
[20:30] <topyli> where is the question?
[20:30] <topyli> i see claims
[20:30] <tonyyarusso> topyli: Nah, I don't expect anything - but you're talking now, so I am too.  If you'd rather run off and get pizza instead, go right ahead :)
[20:30] <topyli> heh
[20:30] <Seeker`> topyli: what extra questions would be asked about someone when they apply to be a core-op?
[20:31] <tonyyarusso> topyli: The question is:  a) What is a "core op"?, b) Why do we need them?, c) How will they be choosen?, d) How is that different from the criteria for a channel op?, e) What are the reasons for those differences?
[20:32] <tonyyarusso> basically.  Some of those have been answered well - (a) I think has now.  The others not necessarily so much.
[20:32] <Seeker`> tonyyarusso: the "need" for them came around when I was told that for existing ops to be given +o in here, the term core-op would have to be properly defined/implemented
[20:33] <topyli> i just attended a meeting, which appeared to have no chair, one world-embracing topic of "why do you suck so", after which i heard someone call it an IRCC meeting. then i didn't understand much for an hour. then i was able to figure out a proposition but time was up
[20:33] <tonyyarusso> topyli: Sounds about right :P
[20:34] <tonyyarusso> topyli: also, I'm only picking on you because you're talking - you're clearly not the one most responsible for replying to these points.
[20:34] <topyli> so i'm willing to cling to this proposition and discuss it in the next one :)
[20:35] <tonyyarusso> Works for me.  Could the other IRCC members please see my 5 questions above, and *document* all of them thoroughly, and then call a follow-up meeting after you have done so, so we actually have something to discuss instead of just babbling incoherently for an hour?
[20:36] <topyli> tonyyarusso: i can paste them to the ircc channel, but i think a summary like that would be useful on the mailing list as well
[20:37] <tonyyarusso> topyli: Agreed.  Geez, now you're making me document my points - the horror!  :P
[20:37] <topyli> hehe
[20:39] <tonyyarusso> dude, good quote - "People don't turn on a computer so they can use Unity, people turn on a computer so they can do things" (can replace "Unity" with $software)
[20:39] <tonyyarusso> Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure which person I'm watching right now
[20:39] <tonyyarusso> I think it's mpt though
[20:41] <topyli> apps are terrible with this, and i hate the current obsession with apps
[20:41] <topyli> my utopia just seems further and further away! :)
[20:41] <topyli> i'm interested in documents and people and places and STUFF, not firefox or abiword
[20:42] <tonyyarusso> topyli: agreed
[20:42] <tonyyarusso> I love applications that bring my STUFF closer (like Gwibber), not just because the application is ooohshiny
[20:43] <gord> for what its worth, thats the general idea behind the unity places tonyyarusso
[20:43] <gord> erm topyli
[20:43] <topyli> yeah gwibber (when it works) abstracts away twitter and facebook and such, and brings you STUFF
[20:43] <tonyyarusso> when it works :P
[20:43] <topyli> gord: yeah places is a great idea
[20:43] <topyli> gord: add people, and we're done :)
[20:43] <tonyyarusso> I *think* most of my problems with gwibber have actually been couchdb problems though, honestly.
[20:43] <gord> the community is working on a people place
[20:44] <topyli> the biggest problem i see is evolution's great resistance to become telepathic
[20:45] <topyli> e-d-s really
[20:45] <tonyyarusso> Also, gord - I'm still waiting for a full realization of Telepathy's promised potential, such as https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/gaim-calendar-auto-aways
[20:46] <tonyyarusso> (Blueprint that I wrote YEARS ago and we still don't have anything like it :( )
[20:46] <tsimpson> tonyyarusso: fwiw, we did send out a request for criteria for applying to be a core op to the irc ML, only got one suggestion
[20:47] <tonyyarusso> tsimpson: Fair point, although I suspect most of us didn't understand what you were even talking about, so wouldn't have bothered weighing in on something we weren't familiar with the purpose of.
[20:48] <tsimpson> tonyyarusso: sure, people asked for clarification, and got answered
[20:48] <topyli> as a general reminder regarding, there's not much time to nominate yourself to be on it!
[20:48] <topyli> regarding ircc that is
[20:48] <tonyyarusso> (I personally likely was just more concerned with other things, and have neglected Ubuntu stuff in deference to political campaigning and school over the last few months.)
[20:49] <tonyyarusso> topyli: Give me a clone to do my boring schoolwork and I'm in! :P
[20:49] <tonyyarusso> Stupid life getting in the way of IRC - should not be allowed.  ;)
[20:55] <topyli> that's the reality, yep
[22:43] <maco> i am clearly a biased kde user
[22:43] <maco> i typed !purgegnome instead of !puregnome
[22:44] <ikonia> ha
[22:49] <topyli> :)
[22:52] <topyli> oh and sorry for the email confusion ikonia, i didn't want to twist your words
[22:57] <ikonia> topyli: not at all, no need to apologise
[22:57] <ikonia> I just didn't want to be the one saying close the channel, I think it's fine as it is
[23:00] <topyli> thanks